Why upgrade from XP Pro 64 to Win 7 64
in [64 Bits Windows]
|
Prev: defrag missing
Next: XP Pro 64 restore points
From: Jeff Gaines on 8 Jan 2010 04:11 On 07/01/2010 in message <OyFNbP$jKHA.1264(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl> Tom wrote: >As I noted, one doesn't have to double click a folder to get the desired >result, it is simply redundant with the new navigation pane set-up. I >would think that would be easier and faster. One also has to double-click >on the DVD/CD drives to make them open. I can't see any difference in the way Explorer is laid out from previous versions except we now have arrow heads instead of plus signs, and the connecting lines have been removed. To expand a folder in the Tree View you either double click it or click on the plus/arrow head. When I do that the Tree View scrolls to place the selected folder near the bottom of the Tree View pane. I don't have to double click an empty CD/DVD to make the drawer open, single click is enough followed by the crunch as it hits the PC door. -- Jeff Gaines Dorset UK If it's not broken, mess around with it until it is
From: David Kerber on 8 Jan 2010 08:27 In article <Ok4t5R#jKHA.4356(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, noway(a)nothere.com says... .... > >> Can you specify what functionalities are missing from 7 that were in > >> older > >> versions? > > > > The specific ones I've run into are all in explorer, and they hurt my > > productivity by making it take more mouse movement and more clicks to > > get my work done: > > > > 1) I use desktop folders to organize shortcuts and to keep my desktop > > itself from being so cluttered. The most irritating one is that when I > > position and size desktop folders the way I like, they don't remember > > either their position or their size after logging off and back on and > > reopening them. Every version back to Windows NT remembered this > > correctly. > > And this still hasn't change, except Win7 allows for a little customization, > even with the sizes of the desktop/taskbars icons. To set your desktop the > way you like, use "autoarrange" then move the icons to the positions you > want. I also use "Align Icons to Gris" as well to make them sanp into place > for neatness. It's not icons that concern me, I don't keep more than a few icons on my desktop. The problem is the size, layout and position of open FOLDERS on the the desktop. Icons stay where they are placed even through restarts, opened folders do not. > > > > 2) The desktop folders don't remember their layouts either: it opens > > every window in the layout the last explorer window closed used. For > > example, the explorer window I'm using to navigate my HD normally has > > the navigation pane, but not the details pane (I've never seen the point > > of the details pane; to me it contains no useful information). If that > > window is the last one I close when logging off or rebooting, my desktop > > folders then reopen with the navigation pane. Every version back to > > windows NT also remembered this. > > This hasn't changed one iota going back to NT or Win 98 as there was a > default setting on any windows install with those versions as well, the > directions to do so changed slightly, but is more efficient. I assume maybe > it was set-up for your liking in previous version or that you haven't found > the path to make this stick yet. Go to Control Panel/Folder Options/View > Tab and uncheck box in window "Restore previous folder windows at logon", if > that is checked. Then open a folder, then on the right (with mouse hover) > select "more options" and slide the bar to what view you prefer. Then click > on the "Organize" button on the left side and select "Folder and search > options", then "View" tab and click the button (it will be ready when you > make changes) "Apply to Folders", and you should be good to go. But then it will apply these changes to windows explorer folders as well, and when I set explorer the way I want it, my desktop folders will be set back to that display after a restart. That is the core of the problem: it doesn't remember INDIVIDUAL folder settings; it applies the same settings to all folders after logging off and back on or rebooting, when I want desktop folders (which contain my shortcuts) to be set up differently than explorer folders, and I want those settings remembered through restarts. > > I can say that I have not had the problem you mention, as I arrange > different folders for my liking once I open that particular folder and with > them not sticking to that setting.. Yes, it will remember a single folder, but if you set up two or more folders with different settings, after a restart they will all be set the way the last one closed was set. > > > > 3) Expanding the folder tree in the navigation pane by double-clicking > > on the folder name or icon causes the navigation pane to reposition > > itself awkwardly: the folder I just double-clicked on moves to the > > bottom of the pane rather than either staying in place, or moving up > > depending on how many subfolders are contained in it. Expanding by > > clicking on the "+" works as expected. > > That's because you are double clicking, if you're double clicking on the > directory path,you're getting the result you don't desire. Do not double > click on them, they already show in the main window when clicked once and > expands enough to show the directory in that folder within the the view of > the pane. Double clicking is simply not needed anymore, therefore less steps > to take. Even single-clicking does it sometimes: the folder I just expanded (by single-clicking on the + sign) jumped DOWN to two lines above the bottom of the navigation pane, meaning I can only see two of its subfolders. I would have expected it to either stay where it way, or to jump up enough to see all the subfolders in the navigation pane. This problem is not consistent; sometimes it works as expected, other times differently. > > > > > 4) The taskbar doesn't display my open windows in the order they were > > opened; it always groups similar types together. I understand that some > > people like this, but I wish I could turn it off and have it work the > > way NT, 2k and XP did in that respect. > > It certainly does organize them in the order they were opened. If you have > different windows opened or numerous sessions of IE opened (for example), > when you hover over them on the taskbar, the items listed top to bottom are But all IE windows are placed next to each other on the taskbar; that's what I don't want. I want EVERYTHING to show on the taskbar in the order it was opened, whether it's the same application or a different one, because it helps me keep track of which things need to be tackled first. XP, 2k and NT all worked this way. Having all the windows from a single app all stacked on top of each other takes too much mouse movement; I want to be able to go directly to the icon of the window I want, and I want it to be where I expect it to be: the latest-opened windows should be last on the task bar, not moved to be near the others from the same app. > what were opened first to last. If they are windows folders, they will also > show their paths. > > > > > 5) There is no way of getting the navigation pane to show the lines > > connecting folders, like I got in XP when I turned off "Display simple > > folder view". > > Why is this necessary? The navigation pane already has the folder trees, The amount that subfolders are indented in explorer are not enough to easily keep large folder hierarchies straight; I can figure it out of course, but can't tell at a glance. In many of my development trees, I have lots of folders at the same level, and deep trees. The lines make it much easier to see what folders are at the same level, and which are above or below others. This is one of the things I see that make it look like Windows has gradually drifted toward consumer-oriented displays and features, and made it harder for power users and developers to use efficiently. > otherwise having the lines as well, would be redundant. Having Windows > Explorer in the pane is the better function and WE is a better navigating > tool for browsing folders. I honestly don't remember there ever being line > in previous version, or I just didn't pay attention. It was not the default, but was activated by turning off "Dispaly simple folder view". > > > > > 6) I can't search *inside* files unless the file extension is > > registered with the search engine. In fact it's a pain to search inside > > files at all, the way the desktop search interface is configured. > > Again, I much preferred the clarity of the older version's "advanced" > > settings. > > Works a treat, and even better. With or without extensions, it shows any > name I type in and it places them in alphabetical order as well. if you But this only works for searching for file names. Searching INSIDE files for some text requires me to go to the bottom of the files list and click on another icon (the "Content" one). And searching inside files of only certain types for certain text takes a magic incantation in the search box that I have to look up every time I want to use it. For example, if I have a directory with thousands of files of many different extensions, but I know I want to search only files with a .cht extension for the text "ABCD", it's a pain. > care, I can make a video or image of this working. Have you tried making > changes in Folder Options/ Search tab? Yes; I had to, in order to get it to search files with different extensions. And the fact that I have to separately add every extension I want to search is a pain, too. > > > > > 7) I don't like the way the "+" signs next to folders in the navigation > > pane appear and disappear when you move your mouse over that pane and > > back away from it. That makes it so that I can't tell if a folder has > > sub-folders without moving my mouse over to that pane, causing wasted > > time. This only occurs if the something other than the navigation pane > > has the focus. > > But, it gets your attention that there are subfolders, no? Should this not > actually make it easier to tell that there are subfolders? I suspect this is > a means for helping performance of the PC, but I may be wrong. I'm sure that showing the + signs all the time where appropriate, rather than having them appear and disappear depending on where my mouse pointer is, takes a fewer cpu cycles. > > > > > > > > > There may have been a couple of others, but these are the main > > irritants. > > > > All the above notwithstanding, I basically like Win7 and will stick with > > it, but I don't like the way they crippled windows explorer, and > > apparently changed some things just for the sake of change rather than > > to actually improve it. I have had no trouble with hardware drivers, > > since I bought the machine with Win7 installed. > > > > Windows 2000 was still my favorite version of windows, though, because > > of its execution speed and clean UI. > > I really like it so far, especially when compared to Vista. It's very > informational with this rig I built and the errors I've gotten. I have been > able to make quick remedy with this feature. Win2000 was a very solid OS, > but times change and so does technology and it had to move on. Win2000 > couldn't handle today's hardware and since MS is in the money-making > business, it wouldn't make sense to just keep building on the same OS, > though the file system (NTFS) is the same. The core OS *is* the same; they've all been built on the NT kernel. Internally, Windows 7 is windows NT 6.something. D
From: David Kerber on 8 Jan 2010 08:31 In article <xn0gove6hadoq1t004(a)msnews.microsoft.com>, jgaines_newsid(a)yahoo.co.uk says... > > On 07/01/2010 in message <Ok4t5R#jKHA.4356(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> Tom wrote: > .... > >And this still hasn't change, except Win7 allows for a little > >customization, even with the sizes of the desktop/taskbars icons. To set > >your desktop the way you like, use "autoarrange" then move the icons to > >the positions you want. I also use "Align Icons to Gris" as well to make > >them sanp into place for neatness. > > I think the point the OP made was that the folders themselves don't > remember their settings. In previous version of Windows the last 400 > folders opened remembered their settings. In Win7 settings are remembered > only for the last folder closed. Exactly. .... > >That's because you are double clicking, if you're double clicking on the > >directory path,you're getting the result you don't desire. Do not double > >click on them, they already show in the main window when clicked once and > >expands enough to show the directory in that folder within the the view of > >the pane. Double clicking is simply not needed anymore, therefore less > >steps to take. > > I think the point the OP was making is that either double clicking a > folder or clicking on the expand arrow expands the folder then relocates > it at the bottom of the Tree View which is a total pain. I'm glad I'm not the only one who runs into this. > > I'll add a couple of annoyances: > > CD/DVD trays opening if you accidentally click on an empty drive in > Explorer. It seems that no MSFT programmer has ever used a PC with a door > on it. I haven't run into this one. > > The very light high-light colour when you are not focussed on the Tee > View, makes it very difficult to see where you are. This must depend on your color scheme and/or theme, because on mine, it's a light gray with good contrast to both the white background and the black test. D
From: David Kerber on 8 Jan 2010 08:34 In article <OyFNbP$jKHA.1264(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, noway(a)nothere.com says... .... > > I think the point the OP made was that the folders themselves don't > > remember their settings. In previous version of Windows the last 400 > > folders opened remembered their settings. In Win7 settings are remembered > > only for the last folder closed. > > But they do remember the settings if you set the folder the way one wants it > to appear and then apply it as I described below. It was the same way with > previous versions of Windows, one had to set the options to make them appear > as one desires, or each folder would not appear the same when opened.. That's the point, I don't WANT them to appear the same. Neither their location nor their layout would be remembered through a restart in Win7; they are all set the way the last one closed was set. .... > > The very light high-light colour when you are not focussed on the Tee > > View, makes it very difficult to see where you are. > > As I noted, one doesn't have to double click a folder to get the desired > result, it is simply redundant with the new navigation pane set-up. I would > think that would be easier and faster. One also has to double-click on the > DVD/CD drives to make them open. > As I noted in my other post, it doesn't require dbl-clicking to get this behavior; any folder expansion will *sometimes* cause the expanded folder to jump to the bottom of the navigation pane. I haven't yet figured out a pattern to when it jumps and when it does not. D
From: Tom on 9 Jan 2010 03:27
"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:xn0gow86ab17w8u000(a)msnews.microsoft.com... > On 07/01/2010 in message <OyFNbP$jKHA.1264(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl> Tom > wrote: > >>As I noted, one doesn't have to double click a folder to get the desired >>result, it is simply redundant with the new navigation pane set-up. I >>would think that would be easier and faster. One also has to double-click >>on the DVD/CD drives to make them open. > > I can't see any difference in the way Explorer is laid out from previous > versions except we now have arrow heads instead of plus signs, and the > connecting lines have been removed. To expand a folder in the Tree View > you either double click it or click on the plus/arrow head. When I do that > the Tree View scrolls to place the selected folder near the bottom of the > Tree View pane. > I don't have to double click an empty CD/DVD to make the drawer open, > single click is enough followed by the crunch as it hits the PC door. > > -- > Jeff Gaines Dorset UK > If it's not broken, mess around with it until it is Interesting, I single click on mine and it only shows the properties of the drive above the status bar. Now, if I double click, you know what happens. |